Horse head in a small scope

[Deadlake]

One question I have would using a BV help in this case?

I used a 30 mm APM UFF eye piece in the above cases.

Next I was going to try with a BV and 24 mm UFF's (prefers as more comfortable to use then TV alternatives)?

[Deadlake]

2 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

 although some report a UHC being of a little assistance. 

I have one of those as well, will spend some more time on HH and flame.

For Onions nebula I find OIII brings out more details.

[Stu]

33 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Optically:

5" LZOS at a dark site -> SQM 21.89 with OIII filter.
Borrowed C11  -> SQM 21.09 with OIII filter.

NVD works, just allows me to see it with the 5" in the back garden instead of going to the middle of Wales.

Interesting that you used an OIII filter. Most of them don’t pass H Beta so are not recommended for the Horsehead, although I think some do so I guess you used one that did, which brand was it out of interest? Generally I would think a UHC is a more certain bet as they normally pass the OIII and H alpha and beta frequencies. H beta best of course.

[Stu]

[Stu]

9 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

For Onions nebula I find OIII brings out more details.

That’s not one I’ve heard of. Did your eyes water when observing?

[Stu]

15 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

One question I have would using a BV help in this case?

I used a 30 mm APM UFF eye piece in the above cases.

Next I was going to try with a BV and 24 mm UFF's (prefers as more comfortable to use then TV alternatives)?

I don’t know the answer to this. @jetstream may be able to advise. It would be a balance of two eyes vs one, against the losses from the additional losses from the prisms etc I guess?

Larger exit pupil would help though, so 24mm in BVs may not be better.

[Deadlake]

15 minutes ago, Stu said:

So both the OIII and UHC filter I have are in a UFC holder/draw. Possible I got them mixed up. I rely on where they are stored in a filter pouch. 
 

[Stu]

10 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

So both the OIII and UHC filter I have are in a UFC holder/draw. Possible I got them mixed up. I rely on where they are stored in a filter pouch. 
 

Worth knowing which is which, particularly for these targets. Which brand do you have? You could likely check the band pass curve and see what they are like. Most good OIIIs pass only the two OIII frequencies so you would be unlikely to see the Horsehead with them.

The Meade OIII shown here does pass Ha and Hb but that makes it more like a UHC to me.

[Deadlake]

Astronomik

As you can see in the dark easy to get mixed up...

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

Astronomik

As you can see in the dark easy to get mixed up...

Better to know what you are using. Had you put the OIII in, you could spend ages looking for something that wasn’t there.

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, Deadlake said:

One question I have would using a BV help in this case?

I used a 30 mm APM UFF eye piece in the above cases.

Next I was going to try with a BV and 24 mm UFF's (prefers as more comfortable to use then TV alternatives)?

I would imagine a binoviewer would help, if the aperture of the scope was large enough to compensate for the dimming of the image due to the beam split. The reason I think it might help is that running parallel to IC434 is a dark nebula that's as black as pitch. That dark nebula is worth looking for as it gives a sharp edge to IC434, and might give a 3D effect in a BV, and could possibly enhance the visual impression. I'm no expert with regard to these targets as I've only seen them once in my 100mm scope, and that was with averted vision; but i do remember the dark nebula as being very evident, giving almost a cliff edge sharpness to IC434. 

In my sketch, I should have put a question mark after HH as the tiny notch was only suspected using averted vision, and its placement is only an approximation. The tiny star next to the arrow tip is the star where I first noticed the shard of nebulosity that is IC434, and everything grew from that point. I felt it was also the brightest visual part of the nebula. I've attached my sketch again for reference. It's worth noting that I was using a prism diagonal so the orientation is not how it is usually seen. (I tilted the diagonal for comfort and just sketch as it appears in the eyepiece, so sorry for any confusion).

[Deadlake]

Maybe @jetstream will chip in once he has finish playing with his new snowmobile

[Deadlake]

44 minutes ago, Stu said:

Better to know what you are using. Had you put the OIII in, you could spend ages looking for something that wasn’t there.

  I can see in the dark😀, however push to on the AZ100 is quite accurate. 

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

  I can see in the dark😀, however push to on the AZ100 is quite accurate. 

Not with the wrong filter in you can’t 😉

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Most of them don’t pass H Beta so are not recommended for the Horsehead

I absolutely believe that an OIII will prevent the Horse Head from being seen, unless its so wide that it is not really an OIII.

[Deadlake]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not with the wrong filter in you can’t 😉

I now have a 2" Chroma H-Alpha 3 nm, I'll be able see more with that. But another post...

[jetstream]

@Stu Havnt been following this thread, but we are wondering if binoviewers can help M42?

They can, but filter use is a no go for me- too dim, re: the "false exit pupil " deal. If everything is right when observing truly bright objects like M42, it can "enhance the look" of it, or give it a different appearance.  However you can dial in mono to give a better look to it and with colour in it. I dont remember seeing the lower loop with binos though.

Filters destroy the Flame nebula and I never use one. The H130 showed the segments the other night nicely no filter.

@Deadlake Even though I've seen IC434 with my 90mm frac under 21.9mag skies with super transparency, I'm not going to comment on seeing the Horse Head in small scopes because I have nothing constructive to say.

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, jetstream said:

@Stu Havnt been following this thread, but we are wondering if binoviewers can help M42?

They can, but filter use is a no go for me- too dim, re: the "false exit pupil " deal. If everything is right when observing truly bright objects like M42, it can "enhance the look" of it, or give it a different appearance.  However you can dial in mono to give a better look to it and with colour in it. I dont remember seeing the lower loop with binos though.

Filters destroy the Flame nebula and I never use one. The H130 showed the segments the other night nicely no filter.

@Deadlake Even though I've seen IC434 with my 90mm frac under 21.9mag skies with super transparency, I'm not going to comment on seeing the Horse Head in small scopes because I have nothing constructive to say.

Thanks Gerry. I think the question was actually about binoviewers for the Horsehead, would they help or hinder seeing that? Thanks

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Thanks Gerry. I think the question was actually about binoviewers for the Horsehead, would they help or hinder seeing that? Thanks

Sorry Stu I went for a bit- planning a snowmobile adventure into a remote lake for Sunday.

Binoviewers will hinder if not obliterate the chance of seeing the HH.IMHO.

[scarp15]

3 hours ago, jetstream said:

@Stu Havnt been following this thread, but we are wondering if binoviewers can help M42?

They can, but filter use is a no go for me- too dim, re: the "false exit pupil " deal. If everything is right when observing truly bright objects like M42, it can "enhance the look" of it, or give it a different appearance.  However you can dial in mono to give a better look to it and with colour in it. I dont remember seeing the lower loop with binos though.

Filters destroy the Flame nebula and I never use one. The H130 showed the segments the other night nicely no filter.

@Deadlake Even though I've seen IC434 with my 90mm frac under 21.9mag skies with super transparency, I'm not going to comment on seeing the Horse Head in small scopes because I have nothing constructive to say.

Exactly, using a mid power eyepiece to gain a touch of contrast is best. 

[jetstream]

3 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Exactly, using a mid power eyepiece to gain a touch of contrast is best. 

I used a 12.5mm Tak ortho in the H130.

 

[Ships and Stars]

I've sussed the HH with a 12" dob from just under 21sqm, but wasn't much to see. With the 20" on my best nights under 21.80+ it's right there, but detail can be elusive as my vision goes in and out.

My goal this past winter was with 20/40x100 bins with Hb on one side and TV nebustar filter on the other. Couldn't do it, under 20.9-21.2, but was close.

21.80+? Very possible.

I reckon an 8" dob  or 6" refractor could do it with the right conditions. A lot is up to you being completely dark adapted, no LEDs, no phone screens, no nothing for a good long while beforehand. The hoods help a lot with this if there are any lights in the distance.

I generally find the flame best without any filter, and I tried astronomik Hb and OIIIs a lot. Was really surprised at that, but that's what I saw. Didn't try UHC.

Seeing the HH or the Flame repeated times under great conditions with a larger scope (I know, I know! Easier said than done) helps a shedload with trying to see it with a smaller scope or under brighter conditions. 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Ships and Stars

[Kon]

13 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

I reckon an 8" dob  or 6" refractor could do it with the right conditions. A lot is up to you being completely dark adapted, no LEDs, no phone screens, no nothing for a good long while beforehand. The hoods help a lot with this if there are any lights in the distance.

You are absolutely right about the conditions and possibility of seeing it in an 8" Dob. I managed it back in January and wrote about it here.

Since that observation I have struggled to see the Flame without a filter as an indication of seeing conditions and I have not bothered for the HH.

[pixelsaurus]

Mel Bartels has something to say about viewing the Horsey.

http://bbastrodesigns.com/6inchF2.8/6 Inch F2.8 Telescope.html